I’m aware plenty of people condemn Israel for good reason, but what I don’t hear is the snide “you’ll never get anyone on your side like that”. It’s a sentiment that black people have been hearing since the 60’s, and is more commonly leveled against “underdogs” that are fighting an establishment.
I think it’s a “sides” thing. It’s mentally easy.
I think this story should be engaged with some nuance: I for example think Hamas is evil. But that does not mean I support Israel. Israel denies Palestinians their basic human rights, kills innocent people, and displaces people from their homes. It places palestinians as second class citizens.
They would be doing this whether or not there was a villain to oppose them, and they do it both when Hamas attacks and when they don’t. They have an absurd amount of wealth and power. They have a military that absolutely crushes people when they do their thing, both in “peace” time and at war. The evil that Israel is capable of is simply not accessible to the likes of Hamas.
It is interesting that similar sentiments aren’t leveled against Israeli police & military when they slaughter innocent people.
It would be weird and suspicious if I did that right?
“Well, Israel would probably have more people on their side if they didn’t kill thousands of innocent people” (which they have done)
It’s like you can use this line against whoever you don’t like to justify not liking them.
My sincere question is, what do you actually want the outcome to be? It is my opinion that if Hamas stopped going to war completely, Israel would continue to oppress Palestinians by denying them rights, displacing them from their homes, and keeping them as second class citizens on the basis of race.
Yeah, that seems like a fairly lean education on the topic. If you’re going to receive an education on something it probably shouldn’t be just the bare minimum?
“Palestine” is not the one that did this. Hamas is a terrorist group, and their actions do not justify the fact that the Israeli government operates an apartheid state where people are given rights, status, and property on the basis of race, and also participates in the slaughter of innocent people.
This isn’t a “whoever’s worse should lose” situation. Israel commits human rights violations and Hamas is a terrorist group.
In order to learn about sex you’re going to have to learn about either straight sex, gay sex, or both. Turns out both types of sex happen to exist. If you’re going to learn about straight sex you should probably learn about gay sex too in case you’re gay. If you’re trans the topic of puberty and your changing body gets 10 times more complicated. You should probably learn about that in case you’re trans. It would be helpful for queer kids and the things they experience to not be left out of sex ed, also so that kids who don’t know there’s some form of queer yet don’t grow up thinking that they’re broken.
Since both straight and gay sex exists, and because trans people exist too, learning about sex from those perspectives is important.
This kind of education is what could have stopped an entire country from thinking that AIDS is caused by being gay.
Excluding queer sexuality and gender from sex education is what we’ve been doing since forever, and surprise it’s left queer kids unprepared for the things they will encounter, and the other kids with the kinds of assumptions that you express here.
Well, that is a pretty ridiculous interpretation.
Workplace democracy would most likely and most broadly refer to all employees of a company having a say in how the company is run. Either by voting on policies and changes, or by electing people to various executive/representative roles, much the same way that current Western democracies work.
An example of the janitor voting on where the surgeon makes a cut makes about as much sense as us voting on where the president flies in his helicopter. At best, it doesn’t pass the make sense test, and at worst is a bad faith interpretation of what people mean when they say “workplace democracy”
A lot of those tests have already been done and were used almost exclusively to enforce segregation.
What will benefit the children born in 200 years?
I’m aware of all of this, but most of the software I use is Windows only. Recommending GIMP/whatever seems like enough to a proud Linux user, but it really just doesn’t cut it. I’m savvy enough to get rid of all the stuff I hate about windows or switch to Linux, but I’m comfortable enough to stay with wondoes
Things that happen inside your head = not illegal
Things that happen outside of your head = can potentially be illegal.
The news reports on the rarer more surprising thing.
Man fucks kid: every damn week if you’ve been keeping tabs on the Catholic church
Man fucks dog: rare and exciting
You can eat them if they have the nutrients you need. Non-carbon-based just means it won’t use carbon as the foundation of its molecular and cellular workings. By mass, there’s relatively little carbon in living organisms and on earth, so whatever’s out there could still use carbon and other elements enough that it has something we could eat. There’s barely any telling what kinds of chemicals will be found in an organism like that, but it could easily be a mix of things we can digest and things we can’t. Even carbon-based life is like that. Wood for example is biologically very similar to us, but is mainly made of cellulose, which we can’t really digest at all.
yes, if it fits.
It’s not true. Your observations may be affected by confirmation, bias, or other things.
https://www.dukehealth.org/blog/myth-or-fact-more-women-go-labor-during-full-moon
However, barometric pressure can apparently induce labor